Juravinski Regional Cancer Center
Juravinski Regional Cancer Center
Grunfeld E.,Ontario Cancer Institute |
Grunfeld E.,University of Toronto |
Julian J.A.,Ontario Clinical Oncology Group |
Julian J.A.,McMaster University |
And 24 more authors.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | Year: 2011
Purpose: An Institute of Medicine report recommends that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP). The trial objective was to determine if an SCP for breast cancer survivors improves patient-reported outcomes. Patients and Methods: Women with early-stage breast cancer who completed primary treatment at least 3 months previously were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated within two strata: less than 24 months and ≥ 24 months since diagnosis. All patients were transferred to their own primary care physician (PCP) for follow-up. In addition to a discharge visit, the intervention group received an SCP, which was reviewed during a 30-minute educational session with a nurse, and their PCP received the SCP and guideline on follow-up. The primary outcome was cancer-related distress at 12 months, assessed by the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, continuity/coordination of care, and health service measures. Results: Overall, 408 survivors were enrolled through nine tertiary cancer centers. There were no differences between groups on cancer-related distress or on any of the patient-reported secondary outcomes, and there were no differences when the two strata were analyzed separately. More patients in the intervention than control group correctly identify their PCP as primarily responsible for follow-up (98.7% v 89.1%; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.9; P = .005). Conclusion: The results do not support the hypothesis that SCPs are beneficial for improving patient-reported outcomes. Transferring follow-up to PCPs is considered an important strategy to meet the demand for scarce oncology resources. SCPs were no better than a standard discharge visit with the oncologist to facilitate transfer. © 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Rabeneck L.,University of Toronto |
Rumble R.B.,McMaster University |
Thompson F.,Community Pathology |
Mills M.,Juravinski Regional Cancer Center |
And 4 more authors.
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology | Year: 2012
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Canadian men and women - accounting for almost 12% of all cancer deaths. In Ontario, it is estimated that 8100 persons were diagnosed with CRC in 2011, and 3250 died from the disease. CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world. Screening offers the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) Guidelines Expert Panel, which was convened in September 2010 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The purpose of the present guideline is to evaluate the existing evidence concerning FIT to inform the decision on how to replace the current guaiac fecal occult blood test with FIT in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck Program. Eleven articles were included in the present guideline, comprising two systematic reviews, five articles reporting on three randomized controlled trials and reports of four other studies. Additionally, one laboratory study was obtained that reported on several parameters of FIT tests that helped to inform the present recommendation. The performance of FIT is superior to the standard guaiac fecal occult blood test in terms of screening participation rates and the detection of CRC and advanced adenoma. Given greater specimen instability with the use of FIT, a pilot study should be undertaken to determine how to implement the FIT in Ontario. ©2012 Pulsus Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Elit L.,Juravinski Regional Cancer Center |
Fyles A.W.,University of Toronto |
Oliver T.K.,McMaster University |
Devries-Aboud M.C.,McMaster University |
Fung-Kee-Fung M.,The Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Center
Current Oncology | Year: 2010
What is the most appropriate follow-up strategy for patients with cervical cancer who are clinically disease-free after receiving primary treatment? For women with cervical cancer who have been treated with curative intent, follow-up includes identification of complications related to treatment and intervention in the event of recurrent disease. Most women who recur with cervical cancer are not curable; however, early identification of recurrence can alter disease management or treatment-planning options, and for those with a central pelvic recur-rence and no evidence of distant disease, there is a potential for cure with additional therapy. Follow-up protocols in this population are variable, using a number of tests at a variety of intervals with ques-tionable outcomes. Outcomes of interest included recurrence, survival, and quality of life. The Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group (dsg) conducted a systematic review of the literature and a narrative review of emerging clinical issues to inform the most appropriate follow-up strategy for patients with cervical cancer. The evidence was insufficient to specify a clinically useful recommended follow-up schedule, and therefore, the expert consensus opinion of the Gynecology Cancer dsg was used to develop recommendations on patient surveillance. The result-ing recommendations were reviewed and approved by the Gynecology Cancer dsg and by the Program in Evidence-Based Care Report Approval Panel. An exter-nal review by Ontario practitioners completed the final phase of the review process. Feedback from all parties was incorporated to create the final practice guideline. The systematic review of the literature identified seven-teen retrospective studies. The Gynecology Cancer dsg used a consensus process to develop recommendations based on the available evidence from the systematic review, the narrative review, and the collective clinical experience and judgment of the dsg members. Practice Guideline The recommendations in this practice guideline are based on the expert consensus opinion of the Gynecology Cancer dsg, informed by evidence from retrospective studies. These are some general features of an appropriate follow-up strategy: 1. At a minimum, follow-up visits with a complete physical examination, including a pelvic-rectal exam and a patient history, should be conducted by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients. 2. There is little evidence to suggest that vaginal vault cytology adds significantly to the clinical exam in detecting early disease recurrence. 3. Routine use of various other radiologic or biologic follow-up investigations in asymptomatic patients is not advocated, because the role of those investigations has yet to be evaluated in a definitive manner. 4. A reasonable follow-up schedule involves followup visits every 3-4 months in the first 2 years and every 6-12 months in years 3-5. Patients should return to annual population-based general physical and pelvic examinations after 5 years of recurrence-free follow-up. © 2010 Multimed Inc.
O'Brien M.A.,University of Toronto |
Grunfeld E.,Ontario Cancer Institute |
Sussman J.,McMaster University |
Sussman J.,Juravinski Regional Cancer Center |
And 2 more authors.
Current Oncology | Year: 2015
Background The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans, but evaluations to date have found little evidence of the effectiveness of such plans. We conducted a qualitative follow-on study to a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to understand the experiences of family physicians using survivorship care plans to support the follow-up of breast cancer patients. Methods A subset of family physicians whose patients were enrolled in the parent rct in Ontario and Nova Scotia were eligible for this study. In interviews, the physicians discussed survivorship care plans (intervention) or usual discharge letters (control), and their confidence in providing follow-up cancer care. Results Of 123 eligible family physicians, 18 (10 intervention, 8 control) were interviewed. In general, physicians receiving a survivorship care plan found only the 1-page care record to be useful. Physicians who received only a discharge letter had variable views about the letter’s usefulness; several indicated that it lacked information about potential cancer- or treatment-related problems. Most physicians were comfortable providing care 3–5 years after diagnosis, but desired timely and informative communication with oncologists. Conclusions Although family physicians did not find extensive survivorship care plans useful, discharge letters might not be sufficiently comprehensive for follow-up breast cancer care. Effective strategies for two-way communication between family physicians and oncologists are still lacking. © 2015 Multimed Inc.